What right minded person who voted 130 times whose can't decided on any issue at all? Obama is one of a kind. sg20
<font size=6>Don't confuse the issue. No Dems would have declared war on another sovereign nation on some phoney excuses.</font> Why the fuck are you writing in such a HUGE font, as if we were all retards?
That's what Joe Liebermann said and you're a fool to believe the Judas. Where's the source to justify the buffoon's remark? C'mon, let's have the facts in writing!
Good job guys, what was once a factual intelligent discussion has resulted in a great ET pissing contest. To hell with the facts, im just going to SAY. geeze.
<font size=6>Itâs Not Just âAyesâ and âNaysâ: Obamaâs Votes in Illinois Echo</font> In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature â to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted âpresent,â effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator. Mr. Obamaâs aides and some allies dispute the characterization that a present vote is tantamount to ducking an issue. They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Source: (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) And this all happened while he was a Illinois state senator, where Joe Liebermann wasn't even present. But read the entire article before making up your mind.
That's because not everyone is a lazyass opportunistic Independent, who has no qualm about anything except his or her own personal comfort. They choose Republican one year and Democrats another. As a hard-core Dem, I find them more reproachable then Republican wing nuts. Hence, my outspoken disgust.
Interesting. The senate votes what? Probably around 100 times per month. He's been in office for just under 4 years...suddenly 130 doesn't seem like that large of a number. I also wonder how many times other senators, including mccain only voted "present". Why can't you all see that ridiculous semi-facts like that are useless. Yet you argue over them as if they could possibly shed some light on how a senator would act a potential president. They can't. Do the research. Don't be liberal or conservative, find the facts. Then make up your mind. This will be the first year I can vote, already I'm appalled by the process. Politics seems to be one of the only areas in which Americans decide what they are and where they stand, and then attempt to find the fact to justify their decision. Instead of the far more logical and far more common way of looking at the facts and then deciding. Gosh, this shit is ridiculous. Im running for office.
You hit the nail on the head-- actually it happens in trading too when someone takes a trade then tries to justify it. They are almost always losing traders.
That's exactly the point - look how terrible things are now compared to 2 years ago: -housing market destroyed -banking system destroyed -unemployment rising -earnings down everywhere -dollar very weak -inflation / oil Who is now in charge of Senate Banking and most other relevant committes that actually make fiscal policy? The Dems. Who has failed in controlling all of the above as they promised to get elected back to the majority in Congress? The Dems.
Deregulation isnt the answer. I agree. The danger is thinking the answer to the subprime woe is to start regulating the economy. Its never either or in the markets. First, the subprime woes do not mean we go away from a free market and into a regulated market. You must realize the other extreme is a "controlled economy". Second, you have to agree that in principle, entrepreneurialship is the cornerstone of economic policy. Now that being said, I would not have a 100% free market. Also, the markets that we are talking about (housing) are no where deregulated. Its a very very regulated market. The answer is tricky but lets say you go to Italy and go to one of the outdoor food markets and you barter with the merchants. Everyone is happy until a bunch of crooks go in and plunder some goods while no one is watching. Do you now say there will no longer be a market place and replace it with a govt run shop that can sell you whatever they think you should have? Probably not. Instead of doing that, the Italian govt should facilitate it better by perhaps having a forceful presense to deter and punish anyone who thinks they can steal. In the same way, a free market isnt truly free unless the govt protects its integrity/structure. The subprime mess had to do with thieves, not a free economy. It had to do with the govt not placing enough resources to monitor the threats to the free market (thieves). In a free market society, the govt's role is not to make the transactions but to facilitate them and to have a strong enough presence to deter would be thieves.